Serious board games: modding existing games for collaborative ideation processes
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
pag. 129
Serious board games: modding existing games for collaborative
ideation processes
Micael Sousa1
1
University of Coimbra, Department of Civil Engineering, CITTA
micaelssousa@gmail.com
Abstract
Modern board games are booming, exploring new design elements, and
providing dynamics that can support unique experiences. Serious game
approaches can benefit from these insights and novelty. With the appropriate
adaptation, modern board games may become flexible and cheaper ways to
use and prototype serious games. Exploring these games and player
engagement can support digital game design. Digital game designers may
learn from modern board games to playtest player engagement and build
prototypes for their serious games. This paper describes an experience with
several adapted modern board games aiming to create a “Light Collaborative
Ideation Process”, supported by the “Engagement Design” model and “The
big five personality traits”. The game session objectives concerned fostering
collaboration and ideation among participants in an informal meeting. The
session successfully supported the potential of using modern board games,
although showing the limitations and future developments required to benefit
from the modding approach.
Keywords: Board games, Serious games, Collaboration, Soft Skills.
1 Introduction
Designing Serious Games (SG) is not an easy task [1], [2], especially when there are few
time and resources available to allocate to their development. Profiting from existing games
is an option [3]. Simple adaptations of well-established games can achieve predefined
objectives while maintaining player engagement [4]. However, the possibility to transform
entertainment games into SG demand proper systematization. Can it be done in fast gaming
sessions (RQ1)? Without knowing the players' profiles (RQ2)? Will these findings related
to modern board games be useful for digital SG development (RQ3)?
This paper describes an experimental dynamic after a meeting to synchronize and
establish a common agenda for future activities. The experiment consisted of a sequence of
modern board games, played with and without adaptations, to promote communication and
co-creation for collaborative work. The games were introduced to establish empathy among
participants that never meet before or did not have close relationships. The game facilitator
selected and adapted four games to create a progressive dynamic intended to establish
collaboration. The experiment invited players to focus on the priorities for the future
common agenda. The games were fast, aiming to engage all the participants, considering
their different player profiles. The experiment implemented a game-based “Light
Collaborative Process for Ideation” (LCPI).
The established gameplay allowed an immediate debriefing with the participants after
each game. The participants filled pre-tests and post-tests inquiries to record their global
experiences, as well as inquires that focused on soft skills they explored during each
different game, their own, and what they thought other players also experienced. Data
collection, from the inquiries, was crossed with The big five personality traits [5] and the
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405pag. 130
Engagement Design model [6] to confirm if the selected games fitted or not the three main
typologies of players/users, as well as if they achieved the objectives of the SG approach.
The facilitator used modern board games [7], [8], adapting them to the SG objectives and
to player profiles [6]. This option was intended to produce a flexible approach to overcome
the difficulties of dealing with different player profiles when using SG [2].
The adopted method followed SG approaches, as it departed from minor adaptations of
entertainment games that would be played and debriefed to achieve serious purposes.
Lowering the complexity of the original games was intended to allow instant playability.
The provided game experiences should be fun for participants and serious by addressing
predefined objectives [1], [9]. Gameplay should enrich the discussion and generate
information beyond the formal meeting, helping participants and the meeting organizers to
collaborate in future projects.
After the introduction, in section 2, we approach the concept of modding entertainment
board games into SG, addressing the session objectives, personality traits, and player
profiles. Section 3 presents the methodology for the practical game experiment. Section 4
delivers data collections, observations, and results. Discussion, conclusion, and limitations
and future work are presented after.
2 Modding board games to be serious games
2.1 Participation and collaboration
The Participative Design (PD) methodologies, where small groups of people do co-creative
tasks [10] and solve problems [11], following also the influences of collaboration currently
seen in Design Thinking (DT) processes as collective ideation [12], supported the game
sequence established for the experiment. These groups, working in collaborative ways, can
produce outputs, solutions, and new ideas through consensus building. As an indirect result,
a resilient participative community able to solve common future problems also can emerge
[13], developing accepted ideas and solutions for collective problems [14].
Among the prerequisites for collaborative planning, there is the need to create a
common language [15], losing the power relations that undermine relations, and
establishing equality in participation [16], shared decision [17]. Dealing with nonlinearity
approaches in collaborative development allows flexibilization to address complexity [13].
To achieve these collaborative approaches active facilitation is mandatory [18].
Because games are rule-bounded arenas of testing, where players solve problems
individually and collectively [19], games can be tools to establish collaboration in
multiplayer activities. The use of multiplayer analog games deepens, even more, the
dynamics for collaboration because these game systems demand players conscientious
agreement and involvement to function [20]–[22]. The materiality of these games also
improves the tangibility and empathy between players [23].
2.2 Start modding board games
Board games can be used directly or adapted to be SG [3]. It depends upon many factors
such as the player profiles [6], the context, the previous experiences, and many other
conditions [24], but the debriefing process is essential to help players achieve the games'
serious objectives [25]. Considering the variety and complexity games may have, the need
for adaptation and establish a profound debriefing process can vary. Ignoring the need for
debriefing may undermine the effects of the SG [2].
There are many available board games to choose from. We propose to use Board Game
Geek (BGG) (www.boardgamegeek.com) database because of its acceptability in the board
game community [26], [27]. BGG allows selecting the most high-ranked games related to
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405Sousa, M., Serious board games: modding existing games for collaborative ideation processes pag. 131
mechanisms and other typologies like the number of players, complexity, and gameplay
duration.
The presence of a facilitator in SG processes, done with existing analog games, is
mandatory [28], [29], also considering the need to explain the game rules progressively
[26], [30].
2.3 From personality traits and facets to skills and player profiles
The big five personality traits and their multiple facets [5], considering ten possible feelings
experienced during gameplay, was the base to identify soft skills experienced during
gameplay (see Table 3). These feelings and skills can be useful to explore the kind of
experiences players have in games and how it contributes to the SG objectives.
Although there is a tendency to seek ways to explore soft skills, it is hard to provide a
definition and a list of them, as Schulz [31] noticed, because it depends mainly on the
context of analysis. Schulz [31] provided some examples of common soft skills:
Communication skills; Critical and structured thinking; Problem-solving skills; Creativity;
Teamwork capability; Negotiating skills; Self-management; Time management; Conflict
management; Cultural awareness; Common knowledge; Responsibility; Etiquette and good
manners; Courtesy; Self-esteem; Sociability; Integrity/Honesty; Empathy.
Although many soft skills are transversal and hard to define, the proposed relationship
of “The big five personality factors” facets and feelings expressed during gameplay can
help. Table 1 expresses those relations for the present case study.
Table 1. Personality factors, facets and proposed feeling and soft skills.
Proposed experience Proposed relations to
The Big Five
Facets feeling during Soft Skills
Personality Factors
gameplay
Efficiency (success in Critical and structured
Competence (Efficient) and Problem solving). thinking.
Consciousness
achievement. Competence (skills for Self-management.
problem-solving). Time management.
Imagination Communication Skills.
Fantasy (Imagination).
Openness to (Creativity). Creativity.
experience Cultural awareness.
Curiosity Curiosity
Sociability.
Communication Skills
Excitement seeking and
Extraversion Excitement Sociability
positive emotions
Conflict management
Trust Trust Communication Skills
Teamwork capability
Altruism Altruism Negotiating skills
Agreeableness
Courtesy
Compliance, modesty, and
Empathy Sociability
tenderness
Conflict management
Anxiety Anxiety Self-management
Neuroticism/
Conflict management
Emotional stability Vulnerability to stress Stress
Table 1 provided the framework for the Game Inquiry (GI) players filled after each
play (the game inquiry results are expressed in Table 5, 6, and 7). Through GI players mark
their feelings to a five-degree Likert scale, which latter can be related to the streams and
users [6]. Players evaluated their feelings (p), which established and group average of
personal feelings (Mp), and what they think other players felt (o) during gameplay, resulting
in average scores for the group (Mo). Zagalo [6] proposes the Engagement Design model
for design interaction motivations that can be applied to game development (see Figure 1).
This framework can also help adjust and choose games to engage users in SG approaches.
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405pag. 132
Figure 1. Engagement Design model: Designing for Interaction
Motivations [6]
3 Methodology
After the formal meeting, the game experience lasted one hour and a half. The facilitator
selected several board games expecting to deliver enjoyable game experiences to as many
players as possible. The games were medium and low complexity (lower than 2.00 where
the maximum is 5, see Table 1), able to be playable within the available time. The selected
games were high-ranked games at BGG (higher than 3.000 rank). They were party games
with mechanisms to foster creativity and cooperative games to engage players in collective
endeavors.
3.1 Selecting and modding games for the experience
The facilitator adapted the selected games to fit SG purposes for the meeting. To understand
the adaptations, Table 2 resumes the original games played during the experiment as their
complexity level according to BGG databases. The game adaptations are, therefore,
expressed in Table 3. BGG game’s complexity level is determined by users, according to a
system of Bayesian averages. The BGG complexity varies from 1 to 5. A game classified
between 1 and 2 is of low complexity, suited for fast learning and playing.
Table 2. Summary of the unchanged games used in the experience and their
complexity according to BGG.
Name of the game Game description Complexity (1 to 5)
Players share oral narratives inspired
Dixit [32] by the surrealistic colored drawings 1.23
of the cards.
Two teams try to be the fastest to
complete a 3D model with different
colored and shaped pieces. Each
Team3 (T3) [33] team is composed of three players, 1.17
each player with a different role. The
first player can read the goal
blueprint and communicate by
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405Sousa, M., Serious board games: modding existing games for collaborative ideation processes pag. 133
gestures to the second player. The
second player can see the gestures
and talk instructions to the third
player. The third player must close
his eyes and listen to the second
player while it tries to do the goal by
combining the plastic pieces.
A cooperative game where players
control a group of four adventures.
The objective is to get the right
weapon for each adventurer and
escape the maze. Players cannot talk
during the game. Players can only
use a pawn to signal the attention of
another player. Each player can do
Magic Maze (MM) [34] one or two movement actions (north, 1.73
south, east, and west), discovering
and add maze tiles, using portals and
ladders. The red hourglass action in
the board allows players to flip the
hourglass that controls the time to
escape and to speak during the
process. It is a real-time game with
no predefined sequence of actions.
Players write a word in their
notebooks. After writing, players
draw pictures representing that word
on the next page. Then the process is
repeated. Players pass the notebooks
among other players in sequence,
Telestrations (TL) [35] allowing the next player to see only 1.09
the previous page. This notebook
passing creates sequences of draws
and words, resulting from creative
and interpretative interactions. It
builds a sequence interaction without
complete information.
Following these insights, the game experiment intended to establish a Light
Collaborative Process for Ideation (LCPI) through three steps (see Table 3).
Table 3. Assumed player skills in a “Light Collaborative Process for Ideation”
(LCPI) with adapted games.
LCPI steeps
Objectives Adaptation
Game
Display random Dixit cards
faced up over a table. The
“Breaking the Ice” and sharing number of cards should be at
controlled personal information by least ten times the number of
players. Dynamic intended for players. Without giving any
Step (1)
introducing players to each other. information to players, they
Dixit
Allows creating some starting pick a card, and, after all the
common knowledge that will help to players have their cards, they
establish common languages [15]. present themselves to the
group based on the card they
picked.
Step (2) General collaborative processes No adaptation is needed, just
Team3 where players need to use their playing the easiest version of
Step (2) coordination and differentiated skills the game.
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405pag. 134
Magic Maze for promoting equality [16] and
sharing decisions to achieve
objectives [14].
Do not use the cards in the
Informal co-creation process through
game. Instruct the players to
linearity and non-linearity interactive
choose a word representing the
sequences [13]. This co-creation
priority for collective projects
produces new ideas for players'
to develop in the future.
Step (3) common problems and challenges
Players must not discuss their
Telestrations [14], considering multiples
selected priorities while the
expressions through drawing and
game is happening. Then, after
writing, following personal
the end game, each player
interpretations that form a collective
presents his notebook so the
narrative.
discussion may occur freely.
After each play, the facilitator conducts a debriefing debate [32], done informally,
inviting players to discuss their behavior and analyze the group gameplay. The players
answer a pre-test and a post-test done to record player characteristics, game performance,
game experience, game satisfaction, and game serious objectives, following the
recommendations from Mayer et al. [24]. Another inquiry intended to record each feeling
players experienced in each game was defined (GI).
The selected games (see Table 2), and their adaptations (see Table 3), created a
sequence where players engaged in collaboration and ideation. But, as Zagalo [6] notices,
there can be at least three types of different users engaged in games, all for different reasons:
the abstracters that like to generalize, deal with uncertainty, and do problem-solving; the
tinkerers that like to experiment, the novelty and the creativity, and; the dramatics that like
the humanize, establishing empathy among other players. Ignoring these different player
profiles and what engages players may undermine the success of choosing and adapting
games. Choosing games to engage as many users as possible is beneficial. The three
streams from the engagement design model deliver a framework to support these decisions.
3.2 Games targeted to user profiles and SG objectives
The Dixit cards were useful to help “break the ice”, supporting players' presentation. But
the storytelling presentations had no special rules or objectives and scoring system. It was
just a dynamic and not a game. Because of this, players did not fill the GI for this game.
However, Dixit storytelling presentations were considered in Table 4 as an LCPI step.
Excitement and stress emotions were not considered in the experiment analysis,
because they can occur in every game as a positive or negative reaction to the engagement
preferences. All the played games had time restrictions intended to create fast games,
providing stress to players.
Table 4. LCPI steps and games related to player skills.
LCPI steps Expected player skills in games
Game
Efficiency (communication).
Curiosity (choosing and describing the cards).
Step (1) Imagination (expression trough personal.
Dixit storytelling).
Empathy (expression trough personal
storytelling).
Efficiency (problem-solving).
Empathy (collective attention).
Step (2)
Trust (other players’ attention).
Team3
Anxiety management (time management and
communicating priorities to other players).
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405Sousa, M., Serious board games: modding existing games for collaborative ideation processes pag. 135
Competence (problem-solving).
Altruism (adapting to other players’ performance).
Stress management (time management and
communicating priorities to other players).
Efficiency (problem-solving).
Empathy (collective attention).
Trust (other players’ attention).
Anxiety management (time management and
Step (2)
communicating priorities to other players).
Magic Maze
Competence (problem-solving).
Altruism (adapting to other players’ performance)
Stress management (time management and
communicating priorities to other players).
Efficiency (communication and interpretation).
Imagination (idea proposal and interpretation).
Empathy (interpretation of the draw and words).
Trust (player do not break the ideas).
Step (3) Anxiety (bad drawing and misspelling).
Telestrations Competence (drawing and guessing).
Curiosity (interpretation of the words and draws).
Altruism (adapting the message to other players).
Stress management (Time management, bad
drawing, and misspelling).
Figure 2 represents a matrix and scheme where each game relates to at least two of the
three columns/streams of the Engagement Design model (and its player profiles). These
relations depart from the proposed dominant feelings players can experience during
gameplay were described in Tables 3 and 4. Through the following scheme (see Figure 2)
is possible to establish the LCPI, supported by the Engagement Design model [6] and the
soft skill [31] related to The big five personality traits [5] in a pragmatic way.
LCPI
Steep
Games Progression Expression Relation
1 Dixit ■ ■
2 Team3 ■ ■
2 Magic Maze ■ ■
3 Telestrations ■ ■
▼ ▼ ▼
Most fit for: Abstracters Tinkerers Dramatists
Dominant expected Feelings Efficiency; Imagination; Empathy; Trust;
during gameplay Competence. Curiosity. Altruism.
Figure 2. Engagement Design model for the selected games considering the
types of users and expected feelings during gameplay.
In Team3 (T3) players must master how the different roles communicate to complete
the puzzles. The game demands communicative expression and creativity, although the
most notorious expected skills are problem-solving and empathy among players due to all
the communications restrictions.
In Magic Maze (MM) players need to manage the movement efficiently, combining all
their allowed actions. Players can talk freely during the hourglass spinning and before the
game. The continuous novelty is introduced in the game as the maze unfolds and changes.
Telestrations (TL) gives freedom and empowers players. They can pick the first word
and interpret the following words and draws. It delivers creative expression, graphic
communication, and interpretation challenge exercises.
All games foster relations among players due to their collaborative gameplay nature
and need for collective agreement to activate the game system.
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405pag. 136
4 Observations and results
4.1 The general meeting
Twelve participants attended this formal meeting, with most of the attendants meeting each
other there for the first time. The formal meeting had a duration of two hours. It started with
personal presentations, followed by each participant sharing information about their
associations or projects. There was a collective agreement that coordinating a common
agenda would bring collective benefits to all, although it was not evident what to do and
when. Nearly half of the participants did not attend the meeting until the end, and only six
stayed for the game dynamic (n=6), planned to occur after the formal meeting. The game
experiment had a total duration of one hour and a half. The meeting happened late in the
afternoon, and many participants claimed they had other appointments to justify leaving the
meeting during the formal discussion before the games.
4.2 Game inquiries results
Because all the inquiries were anonymous, which impossibilities singular players analysis,
only average results (M) supported this experience. The Mp relates to self-evaluation, and
Mo relates to the perception of other players' feelings during gameplay with the GI. The
difference between the Mp and Mo is the average perception variation between self-
evaluation and evaluating other players, which is useful to address general empathy during
collaboration. The standard deviation (SD) considers the differences between players'
evaluations, which can provide insights about the different profiles and how players reacted
uniquely to the tested games.
Tables 5, 6, and 7 express players' experiences after playing the games (Team3, Magic
Maze, and Telestrations). In Table 5 (Team3) curiosity was the personal feeling with the
highest average score (Mp=4.00), although players attributed the higher feeling perception
about other players to empathy (Mo=4.17). The highest personal deviation was in trust
(SDp=1.21), which is understandable because it was the first game. Competence had the
same self-evaluation as the other players' feelings (Mp=Mo=3.50), although the SD varied
to some extent (SDp=1.05 and SDo=0.84). This tendency of considering other players'
performance better them their own was common in all games.
Table 5. Reported feelings by players during Team3.
Feelings/
Mp SDp Mo SDo Mp-Mo
Behavior
Efficiency 3.00 1.10 3.17 0.75 -0.17
Imagination 3.67 1.03 3.67 0.82 0.00
Empathy 3.67 1.03 4.17 0.41 -0.50
Trust 3.33 1.21 4.00 0.63 -0.67
Anxiety 2.50 1.05 3.00 0.63 -0.50
Competence 3.50 1.05 3.50 0.84 0.00
Curiosity 4.00 0.63 3.83 0.41 0.17
Excitement 3.50 0.55 3.50 0.55 0.00
Altruism 3.83 0.41 4.00 0.00 -0.17
Stress 2.00 0.63 2.17 0.75 -0.17
In Table 6 (Magic Maze) excitement was the highest feeling players expressed in their
perception (Mp=4.33), something also evident when considering other players’ evaluation
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405Sousa, M., Serious board games: modding existing games for collaborative ideation processes pag. 137
(Mo=4.17). Empathy also had the highest score by other players' perceptions (Mo=4.17).
Altruism felt by other players was evaluated with the same grade by all players (Mp=4.00
and SD=0.00).
Table 6. Reported feelings by players during Magic Maze.
Feelings/
Mp SDp Mo SDo Mp-Mo
Behavior
Efficiency 3.67 0.52 3.83 0.41 -0.17
Imagination 3.33 1.03 3.83 0.75 -0.50
Empathy 4.00 0.89 4.17 0.41 -0.17
Trust 3.50 0.84 3.67 0.82 -0.17
Anxiety 3.67 1.21 3.50 0.84 0.17
Competence 3.17 0.75 4.00 0.00 -0.83
Curiosity 4.17 0.98 3.83 0.75 0.33
Excitement 4.33 0.82 4.17 0.75 0.17
Altruism 3.67 0.52 4.00 0.00 -0.33
Stress 3.33 0.82 3.50 0.84 -0.17
In Table 7 (Telestrations) the highest expression from players' self-evaluation was
curiosity (Mp=4.50 and SDp=0.84) followed by imagination (Mp=4.33, SDp=0.84).
Imagination (Mp=4.33, SDp=0.52) and curiosity (Mo=4.33, SDo=0.82) were also the
highest evaluation perception players attributed to the other players' expressions during
gameplay.
Table 7. Average feelings by players during Telestrations.
Feelings/
Mp SDp Mo SDo Mp-Mo
Behavior
Efficiency 3.67 0.52 3.83 0.75 -0.17
Imagination 4.33 0.82 4.33 0.52 0.00
Empathy 3.83 0.75 4.33 0.52 -0.50
Trust 3.67 0.82 4.17 0.41 -0.50
Anxiety 2.83 1.60 2.67 1.37 0.17
Competence 3.17 0.41 3.83 0.75 -0.67
Curiosity 4.50 0.84 4.33 0.82 0.17
Excitement 3.50 0.55 4.00 0.89 -0.50
Altruism 4.00 0.63 3.50 0.55 0.50
Stress 2.33 1.51 2.33 1.21 0.00
In Table 8, the Average (M) and standard deviation (SD) obtained from the game
inquiries should allow an easy direct comparison for the sequence of games. The results
from the Mp-Mo express the maximum gap between them.
The game sequence reveals that the efficiency, trust, and curiosity raised from game to
game in the self-evaluation (Mp) and the evaluation of the other players' perceptions (Mo).
Other feelings variated greatly. Imagination and curiosity increased from game to game as
expected because the last game (Telestrations) was the most adequate to foster creativity.
Considering both perspective evaluations (Mp and Mo), the reduction of imagination
from Team3 to Magic Maze and the increase in Telestrations evidence the expected reaction
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405pag. 138
predicted in Figure 2. The efficiency increased from Team3 to Magic Maze and remained
the same during Telestrations. The empathy increased from Team3 to Magic Maze and then
decreased in Telestrations, but only in the self-evaluation, while the perception of other
players' behavior increased. The first two games demanded more collaboration among
players, while the third was more prone to individual creativity. The anxiety had a peak
during Magic Maze, understandable due to the communication and time restrictions. This
anxiety seems to relate to excitement because the two feelings burst during Magic Maze.
Table 8 expresses the differences between average self (Mp) and average collective
evaluations (Mo). Competence and altruism manifested the maximum difference of 0.83
between self-evaluation and collective behavior. These gaps may reveal the manifestation
of abstracters and dramatists [6] expressing their feelings while playing the different games
and noticing other players be different from them. Considering the tinkerers' users (see
Figure 1) and their preferences [6] (see Figure 2), the difference did not seem so evident
because the gap for imagination was 0.50 and curiosity only 0.17.
Table 8. Average results about feeling during gameplay.
Mp Mo Mp-Mo
Feelings/
Maximum
Behavior T3 MM TL T3 MM TL T3 MM TL
gap
Efficiency 3.00 3.67 3.67 3.17 3.83 3.83 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 0.00
Imagination 3.67 3.33 4.33 3.67 3.83 4.33 0.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50
Empathy 3.67 4.00 3.83 4.17 4.17 4.33 -0.50 -0.17 -0.50 0.33
Trust 3.33 3.50 3.67 4.00 3.67 4.17 -0.67 -0.17 -0.50 0.50
Anxiety 2.50 3.67 2.83 3.00 3.50 2.67 -0.50 0,17 0.17 0.67
Competence 3.50 3.17 3.17 3.50 4.00 3.83 0.00 -0.83 -0.67 0.83
Curiosity 4.00 4.17 4.50 3.83 3.83 4.33 0.17 0.33 0.17 0.17
Excitement 3.50 4.33 3.50 3.50 4.17 4.00 0.00 0.17 -0.50 0.67
Altruism 3.83 3.67 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 -0.17 -0.33 0.50 0.83
Stress 2,00 3.33 2.33 2.17 3.50 2.33 -0.17 -0.17 0.00 0.17
After each game, players also wrote the first words that come to their mind relating to the
previous gameplay. The collected words were analyzed through the grounded theory [33]
and organized in Table 9. Some players did not write as many words as others, which
produced more data in some games than others (see Table 9).
Table 9. First words players wrote after each game to describe gameplay
Communication
Cooperation
Creativity
Simplicity
Efficiency
Dynamic
Tension
Skill
Fun
Game
Team3 0 3 3 1 0 2 0 4 1
Magic Maze 1 2 5 1 0 1 0 4 0
Telestrations 6 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0
Skill, communication, and tension (relating to competence and progression) emerged
in Team3. Cooperation and skill emerged in Magic Maze more than other games, despite
all being collaborative. On the other hand, creativity appeared more in Telestrations as
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405Sousa, M., Serious board games: modding existing games for collaborative ideation processes pag. 139
expected due to the freedom to draw and interpret drawings. Players highlighted the
simplicity of Telestrations, which confirms the low complexity classification from BGG
(see Table 2).
4.3 Game pretests and posttests results
The pre-test and post-test were useful to collect more data about the participants. The game
habits, considering all game types, are considered not high. Only one player admitted
playing at least once per day. Three played at least once per week, two once per month, and
the last one reported playing less than once per month (at least once per year). These game
habits lead as concluding that participants were not very interested in games. However,
when asked if games are fun, the average value for the responses was M=4.33 with
SD=0.47. The low game habits may explain why the average evaluation increased to
M=4.50 with SD=0.50 after playing the games (see Table 10). The result for the global
engagement was high (M=4.67, SD=0.47), with a low level of frustration (M=2.33,
SD=1.20) and medium level of anxiety (M=3.17, SD=1.50), despite the considerable
variation in player interpretations. The challenge level (M=4.50, SD=0.50) was high, a
source of enjoyment when considering the other feelings. The surprise factor was not as
high as expected (M=4.00, SD=1.82) considering low game habits. The feelings/behaviors
identified in Table 10 are related to the The Big 5 personality traits (see Table 1).
Table 10. Post-test results
Feelings/behavior
Likert scale of evaluation
after the
M SD
sequence of
1 2 3 4 5
games
Fun 0 0 0 3 3 4.50 0.50
Difficulty 0 1 2 1 2 3.67 1.39
Engagement 0 0 0 2 4 4.67 0.47
Challenge 0 0 0 3 3 4.50 0.50
Anxiety 0 2 2 1 1 3.17 1.50
Adaptation 0 0 0 2 4 4.67 0.47
Surprise 0 0 2 2 2 4.00 0.82
Frustration 1 3 1 1 0 2.33 1.20
When comparing the motivation before and after the games, the average evaluation
increased from M=4.33 to M=4.50. The correlation between the answers to the question “if
games were fun” (see Table 11) was perfect.
Considering the objectives of establishing the conditions for future collaboration
projects, players classified the experience as a success, with M=4.67 (SD=0.47). When
asked if they would play these games in the future for fun, the average answer was M=4.50
(SD=0.5).
Table 11 also expresses post-tests results, where players manifested a global evaluation
about the fun and excitement higher than each GI. Although the anxiety levels were higher
at the end of the experience, they were lower than in Magic Maze. These high anxiety and
enjoyment are examples of paradoxical feelings expressed in games.
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405pag. 140
Table 11. Comparison of self-evaluation from GI and the post-test
Feelings/ Mp (GI) End of the
Behavior T3 MM TL experiment (M)
Anxiety 2.50 3.67 2.83 3.17
Fun/Excitement 3.50 4.33 3.50 4.50
4.4 Game Observations
Players grasped every game with only one explanation, even though they did not know the
games previously. Only minor doubts occurred during gameplay, easily explained by the
facilitator. It was notorious that some players were more engaged in some games than
others. The laughing, commenting, and discussing gameplay varied from game to game and
from player to player. At the start of the games, two players said they need to leave after
the first game, but they continued to play until the end.
The personal presentation, using Dixit cards, instantly changed the mood in the room.
Fun comments and smiley interactions between participants emerged. The contrast between
the debate done in the previous meeting was notorious. In Team3, both teams (3 players
each) managed to finish the objective almost at the same time, in less than 15 minutes.
Although being a more complex and demanding game, players acknowledged Magic Maze
in a fast way. By playing just one time, players were very close to fulfilling the game goal.
One of the players, when the hourglass flipped, assumed leadership. He defined a collective
plan to fulfill the goals. All players participated in this fast strategy debate. During the
Telestrations game, there were convergence and divergence in the notebooks. Concepts like
“communication”, “Trust”, “collaboration”, “ideas”, “leadership”, “team” and “union”
emerged from gameplay as priorities to achieve the objectives of the previous meeting.
After the game session, the facilitator conducted a fast debrief for 15 minutes. Players
highlight their surprise and how the games generated empathy and collaboration. Players
stated that tensions and difficulties mastering the games did not affect engagement. During
the debriefing, players talked with more energy and enthusiasm than during the previous
meeting. They were curious to try more games and game approaches to foster creativity
and collaboration. Players identified several keywords related to cooperation (similar to
Table 9).
5 Discussion
Players believed the game session achieved the session's objectives of fostering future
collaborations (M=4.67). They stated the games to be enjoyable because they said they
would play them in the future just for fun (M=4.5). The results from the Telestrations
notebooks reinforced this perception. Without any preparation, players identified in the
notebooks key concepts to establish collaborative approaches to the common objective. The
final debate, during the debriefing, reinforced these perceptions.
The experiment established some relationships to soft skills expressed during the
games, although they were, undoubtedly, difficult to analyze. Despite these difficulties,
Team3 and Magic Maze obtained high scores in efficiency and competence as expected,
establishing the relationship to abstracters and tinkerers. On the other end, Telestrations
was the game where players expressed the most imagination and creativity, relating to
tinkerers and dramatists. In all games, empathy, trust, and altruism maintained an SD =0.50
or less, probably due to being collaborative games, even in Telestrations where the
competitions departed from a process of co-creation.
These results show that the Engagement Design model can help to choose games to
modify to be SG. The players support the initial claims that each game fits the three
typologies of users (see Figure 1 and Table 9), at least in a general way according to their
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405Sousa, M., Serious board games: modding existing games for collaborative ideation processes pag. 141
statements. BGG can support choosing games to modify into SG able to address soft skills
like creativity and collaboration. But choosing sets of games that the different profiles can
enjoy increases player engagement. The Engagement Design model seems to be a valid
method to support these SG modding approaches. Facilitators benefit from the ability to
engage all the different player profiles because they may ignore who will play the games.
Building SG from modding existent games can be a valuable resource for project
managers, facilitators, community activators, and any agents who need fast tools to engage
with first-time users or in continuous sessions that require progressive adaptation to users.
Party games and other alike can be continuously adapted to approach multiple issues.
Although this might seem easy, it is mandatory to know the games in detail, which skills
they can explore, and balance the type, gender, and quantity of games to engage with users.
The increasing stress felt by players during the games can be explained by the hurry to
leave the experience. Some attendants need to leave early. However, they continued
playing until the end. These external influences affected game experiences, although some
game systems deliver these feelings intentionally. This design feature is evident in Magic
Maze, the game where the stress/anxiety generation occurred the most (see Table 8), despite
one of the users referred to the tension it felt during Team3 (see Table 9). Stress and anxiety
during gameplay can be misleading because they can contribute to engagement in some
games.
The experiment allows comparing the differences between personal and other players'
perceptions. In multiplayer gameplay experiences, the interaction among players is
constant, and it builds towards the potential of engagement. The highest gaps between
personal and other players' perceptions happened in the feelings of competence and
altruism. This example reveals how subjective they can be and can impact collaboration.
Low altruistic group attitude and an unbalanced notion of competence among participants
may undermine collaboration processes. Using games to evaluate and strengthen this
feeling can help future SG, even as a prior exercise to a collaborative specific process not
related to games.
Choosing low complexity games (see Table 2), supported by a permanent facilitator,
proved efficient to engage first-time users without profound game habits. The LCPI was
generic and flexible enough to help players relate to what was involved in a collaborative
process. Players realized how other participants perceive the same experiences and can
create different solutions to the same problems.
The leaving of many participants before the games must be stated as a potential
problem. Participants might consider games as extra or unnecessary work. Introducing “ice-
breaking” games, like the use of Dixit [34] cards, can be a way to show participants the
benefits of SG approaches, even without a scoring system.
We propose the following general scheme (Figure 3) to systemize the findings from the
experiment. The proposed scheme can lead to future testing and comparing the proposed
approach of the LCPI to other similar examples [4]. In it, the facilitator will define the SG
objectives and available resources. The facilitator must identify contextual limitations to
select a sample of games to modify and playtest. Playtesting might demand to restart the
process if the SG objectives are not met. After assuring objectives are reachable, the
facilitator can use the SG to deliver playable sessions. But the facilitator may realize that
the objectives cannot be fully achieved with the available resources (i.e., time, numberer of
players, and other context limitations), which may demand reconsidering the initial
objectives to achieve through games. During the actual play, the analyses and evaluation
of SG objectives are continuous.
Learning from the presented case study, we believe that the LCPI can be adapted to
other goals and be a guidance framework to build SG approaches, done after modding
modern board games. The SG processes departed from the LCPI are ready to use solutions
or ways to support prototype building that game designers may use in their digital SG
development.
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405pag. 142
Define SG Objectives (i.e., Select games to
Play
collaboration) modify
Identify available Playtest and Analyze play (with a
resources modding games facilitator)
Identify context limitations Establish conclusions from
(i.e., time, number of gameplay to SG objectives
SG objectives
players) (i.e., collaboration).
are
reachable?
No Yes
Figure 3. Scheme for modding board games to became SG for the example
of collaboration (appliable to the LCPI).
The previous scheme combines the polycentric game development approach with the
multiple cycles of playtesting [37] with the goal-centered SG approaches. This scheme
supports digital game design when it departs from analog game prototypes [38].
Understanding how players directly activate these analog game systems can help designers
decide what to automatize in digital games.
6 Conclusion
The experience proved that modern board games are adaptable to foster collaborative
engagement. Through the LCPI proposal, it is possible to say that players successfully
identified some of the prerequisites for collaboration. By achieving this, players may be
better prepared for future collaborative projects, although the game experience was brief
and unable to test this accurately in other situations. Despite unknowing future player
behaviors, the experiment proved that game usage can be a starting point to establish
collaborative processes. The experiment highlighted the effects of different players' profiles
and subjectivity in SG usages. That modding modern board games as SG deliver tools for
soft skills development. The experiment demonstrated how, by doing game dynamics, a
mood in a formal meeting changes without losing its serious intentions (RQ1).
The Engagement Design model was a valuable framework to choose games to engage
with different players when facilitators have several available games but do not know the
attendants (RQ2). Although players liked some games better than others, they all
appreciated the game experience and how games addressed the meeting objectives. The big
five traits approach was able to make relationships from expected player behavior and the
streams of the Engagement Design model, easily measured by players’ perceptions through
the GI.
Profiting from existing games, which can be easily adapted, is valuable for fast and
simple SG exercises (RQ1). The flexibility of modern board games to deliver fun and be
engaging is valuable. When supported by adequate frameworks, they can become low-tech
SG and support prototypes for digital SG development. Since many new modern game
designs are continuously appearing, new opportunities are always available to modify and
inspire new solutions.
Facilitators help to lower the game complexity, even when players have little
experience with games. Facilitators also support players to establish the relationships
between their personal and collective experiences to the SG objectives. The debriefing
process is essential to guaranty that players achieve SG objectives.
The LCPI provided an example to systemize the modern board game modding to
became SG. The LCPI highlighted the possibilities of exploring the design innovation and
unique interactions of the modern board game for general SG design. We believe this
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405Sousa, M., Serious board games: modding existing games for collaborative ideation processes pag. 143
systematic approach also brings new possibilities to future tests for digital serious games,
at least for prototyping objectives (RQ3).
7 Limitations and future work
It was possible to collect data from two types of inquiries and formal observation. But the
low number of participants (n=6) cannot generate unquestionable results. Despite these
limitations, the LCPI experience opens a path for future research and development, done
with more players and games. Future research should enlarge the number of players and
different played games. More data would establish clear patterns of behaviors. It could
highlight the effect of each design element in the player experiences and the desirable
serious outputs. Analyzing some dual feelings like stress and challenge must be crossed
with other data sources, confirming if it is a positive or negative effect during gameplay
(RQ2).
Upcoming experiences should benefit from comparing different types of games and
other collaboration ideation processes without games. Introducing non-modern board
games, digital games, and other game typologies could establish clear conclusions for SG
usage. Board games can be explored in online video conversation platforms and as
prototypes for digital games in future research (RQ3).
The experiment revealed how important it is to record each player's experience
separately throughout all played games. This information would help to establish direct
relationships between games and skills. As well as about what game elements each player
profile appreciated the most. Because players may not express all their unconscious feelings
through written questionnaires, filming gameplay, and use biometric data-gathering could
bring valuable information to evaluate players' engagement.
There is also the need to deepen the debriefing process to collect information about
players' behaviors for further analyses. This data would allow us to clearly understand the
inquiries answers and the relationships with the SG objectives. The debriefing should
follow a defined protocol, despite the obligation to be flexible to help the facilitator role.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank to Patrícia Oliveira for revising the text and give important
feedback and to António Pais Antunes for supervising the author during the Ph.D.
Funding
This research was funded by “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” (FCT), the
Portuguese funding agency, for supporting this research, under the grant
PD/BD/146491/2019.
References
[1] R. Dörner, S. Göbel, W. Effelsberg, and J. Wiemeyer, Serious Games. Springer, 2016, doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-40612-1
[2] F. Bellotti et al., “Designing serious games for education: from pedagogical principles to
game mechanisms,” in Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Games Based
Learning, 2011, pp. 26–34.
[3] E. Castronova and I. Knowles, “Modding board games into serious games: The case of
Climate Policy,” Int. J. Serious Games, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 41–62, 2015, doi:
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405pag. 144
10.17083/ijsg.v2i3.77.
[4] M. Sousa, “Fast Brainstorm techniques with modern board games adaptations for daily
uses in business and project managing,” in Proceedings of the International Conference of
Applied Business and Manage-ment (ICABM2020), 2020, pp. 508–524, [Online].
Available: https://icabm20.isag.pt/images/icabm2020/BookofProceedings.pdf.
[5] J. J. Heckman and T. Kautz, “Hard evidence on soft skills,” Labour Econ., vol. 19, no. 4,
pp. 451–464, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2012.05.014.
[6] N. Zagalo, Engagement Design : Designing for Interaction Motivations. Springer Nature,
2020, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-37085-5.
[7] S. Woods, Eurogames: The Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board Games.
McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers, 2012.
[8] M. Sousa and E. Bernardo, “Back in the Game: modern board games,” in Videogame
Sciences and Arts, 2019, pp. 72–85, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-37983-4_6.
[9] D. R. Michael and S. L. Chen, Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform.
Muska \& Lipman/Premier-Trade, 2005.
[10] G. Sim, M. Horton, and J. C. Read, “Sensitizing: helping children design serious games for
a surrogate population,” in International Conference on Serious Games, Interaction, and
Simulation, 2015, pp. 58–65, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-29060-7_10.
[11] S. Paracha, L. Hall, K. Clawson, N. Mitsche, and F. Jamil, “Co-design with Children:
Using Participatory Design for Design Thinking and Social and Emotional Learning,”
Open Educ. Stud., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 267–280, 2019, doi: 10.1515/edu-2019-0021.
[12] J. Liedtka, “Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through
cognitive bias reduction,” J. Prod. Innov. Manag., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 925–938, 2015,
10.1111/jpim.12163.
[13] J. E. Innes and D. E. Booher, Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative
rationality for public policy. Routledge, 2018, doi: 10.4324/9781315147949.
[14] J. E. Innes and D. E. Booher, “Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A
framework for evaluating collaborative planning,” J. Am. Plan. Assoc., vol. 65, no. 4, pp.
412–423, 1999, doi: 10.1080/01944369908976071.
[15] B. C. Crosby and J. M. Bryson, Leadership for the common good: Tackling public
problems in a shared-power world, vol. 264. John Wiley \& Sons, 2005.
[16] J. S. Dryzek, Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge
University Press, 1990, doi: 10.1017/9781139173810.
[17] S. S. Fainstein and J. DeFilippis, Readings in planning theory. John Wiley \& Sons, 2015,
doi: 10.1002/9781119084679.
[18] J. Forester, The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes.
Mit Press, 1999.
[19] K. Salen and E. Zimmerman, Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press,
2004.
[20] J. P. Zagal, J. Rick, and I. Hsi, “Collaborative Games: Lessons Learned from Board
Games,” Simul. Gaming, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 24–40, 2006, doi: 10.1177/1046878105282279.
[21] Y. Xu, E. Barba, I. Radu, M. Gandy, and B. Macintyre, “Chores Are Fun: Understanding
Social Play in Board Games for Digital Tabletop Game Design,” Proc. DiGRA 2011 Conf.
Think Des. Play, 2011.
[22] M. J. Rogerson, M. R. Gibbs, and W. Smith, “Cooperating to compete: The mutuality of
cooperation and competition in boardgame play,” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI
conference on human factors in computing systems, 2018, pp. 1–13,
10.1145/3173574.3173767.
[23] M. J. Rogerson, M. Gibbs, and W. Smith, “‘I Love All the Bits’: The Materiality of
Boardgames,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 2016, pp. 3956–3969, doi: 10.1145/2858036.2858433.
[24] I. Mayer et al., “The research and evaluation of serious games: Toward a comprehensive
methodology,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 502–527, 2014, doi:
10.1111/bjet.12067.
[25] L. C. Lederman, “Debriefing: Toward a Systematic Assessment of Theory and Practice,”
Simul. Gaming, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 145–160, 1992, doi: 10.1177/1046878192232003.
[26] M. Sousa, “Modern Serious Board Games: modding games to teach and train civil
engineering students,” in 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference
(EDUCON), 2020, pp. 197–201, 10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125261.
[27] M. J. Rogerson and M. Gibbs, “Finding Time for Tabletop: Board Game Play and
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405Sousa, M., Serious board games: modding existing games for collaborative ideation processes pag. 145
Parenting,” Games Cult., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 280–300, 2018, doi:
10.1177/1555412016656324.
[28] L. De Caluwé, J. Geurts, and W. J. Kleinlugtenbelt, “Gaming Research in Policy and
Organization: An Assessment From the Netherlands,” Simul. Gaming, vol. 43, no. 5, pp.
600–626, 2012, doi: 10.1177/1046878112439445.
[29] D. Crookall, “Serious Games, Debriefing, and Simulation/Gaming as a Discipline,” Simul.
Gaming, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 898–920, 2010, doi: 10.1177/1046878110390784.
[30] M. Sousa and J. Dias, “From learning mechanics to tabletop mechanisms: modding steam
board game to be a serious game,” in 21st annual European GAMEON® Conference,
GAME‐ON®'2020, 2020.
[31] B. Schulz, “The importance of soft skills: Education beyond academic knowledge.,” 2008.
[32] C. I. Johnson and R. E. Mayer, “Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia
learning in a computer-based game-like environment,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 26,
no. 6, pp. 1246–1252, 2010, 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.025.
[33] K. Charmaz, Constructing grounded theory. sage, 2014.
[34] L. Roubira, “Dixit.” Libellud, 2008.
[34] Cutler, A and Fantastic, M., “Team3.” Brain Games, 2019.
[35] Lapp, K, “Magic Maze.” Sit Down!, 2017.
[36] Användbart Litet Företag, “Telestrations.” Användbart Litet Företag, 2009.
[37] T. Fullerton, Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative
Games, 4th Editio. AK Peters/CRC Press, 2014, doi: 10.1201/b16671.
[38] B. Brathwaite and I. Schreiber, Challenges for game designers. Nelson Education, 2009.
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405pag. 146
Apendix
PRE-TEST
Likert scale of evaluation
Never At least once At least once At least once Every day
(1) per year per month per week (5)
(2) (3) (4)
How often do
you play games? □ □ □ □ □
Likert scale of evaluation
(None) - - - (Totally)
1 2 3 4 5
Games are fun? □ □ □ □ □
What is your current motivation to play □ □ □ □ □
the proposed games?
GAME INQUIRES (GI)
Name of the game: ___________________________________________________________________________________
Likert scale of evaluation
Your feelings during
gameplay (None) - - - (Totally)
1 2 3 4 5
Fun
□ □ □ □ □
Difficulty
□ □ □ □ □
Engagement
□ □ □ □ □
Challenge
□ □ □ □ □
Anxiety
□ □ □ □ □
Adaptation
□ □ □ □ □
Surprise
□ □ □ □ □
Frustration
□ □ □ □ □
Likert scale of evaluation
Other players feelings
during gameplay (None) - - - (Totally)
1 2 3 4 5
Fun
□ □ □ □ □
Difficulty
□ □ □ □ □
Engagement
□ □ □ □ □
Challenge
□ □ □ □ □
Anxiety
□ □ □ □ □
Adaptation
□ □ □ □ □
Surprise
□ □ □ □ □
Frustration
□ □ □ □ □
Describe the first words that came to your mind about this game experience:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405Sousa, M., Serious board games: modding existing games for collaborative ideation processes pag. 147
POST-TEST
Likert scale of evaluation
(None) - - - (Totally)
1 2 3 4 5
Games are fun? □ □ □ □ □
What is your current motivation level? □ □ □ □ □
How do you classify the complexity of
the played games? □ □ □ □ □
Where you engaged in the played
games? □ □ □ □ □
How do you classify the level of
challenge of the played games? □ □ □ □ □
How do you classify your level of
anxiety after playing the games? □ □ □ □ □
How do you classify your level of
surprise after playing the games? □ □ □ □ □
How do you classify your level of
frustration after playing the games? □ □ □ □ □
Did the games achieved the objectives
previously defined for of the session? □ □ □ □ □
Would you play these games just for
fun? □ □ □ □ □
Final commentaries about the game session:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal of Serious Games Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2021
ISSN: 2384-8766 http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.405You can also read
